Blog

This is Part 4 in an ongoing series about a the concept of nullification by states; the idea that individual states can declare a federal law or regulation unconstitutional and, therefore, refuse to implement it. See FOOTNOTE section for links to Parts 1 -3 and additional supporting information. ¹ 

My prior opinion, that nullification is a good idea, was based on a number of ideas that simply aren’t true.

Some of the myths…(two others will be discussed in Part 5)

• The states are sitting ducks, and therefore defenseless against an onslaught of laws and regulations coming from the elected officials and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

• Our problem is not in Nebraska, it’s in Washington, D.C.

• State level officials and bureaucrats are opposed to the imposition of federal programs on state and local governments.

Realities…

Federal government has definitely reached beyond its Article I, Section 8 powers too frequently; there are plenty of examples of legislation passed by Congress, and administrative laws issued by bureaucrats that are onerous to States and individuals. There have been too many unfunded mandates coming out of Washington, D.C.

BUT…

The amount of federal government expansion loudly and consistently objected to by the states and the actual number of “unfunded mandates” have been greatly exaggerated.

*States have largely given away state sovereignty.*

Why? It’s very simple…

Politicians and bureaucrats want federal dollars.

Why? Again, very simple…

• Politicians benefit politically, bureaucrats justify their existence

Unfortunately, it has become the standard practice of elected officials to cite lists of numbers, including funds disbursed, to detail how much they’ve done while in office².

Spending is considered proactive and positive leadership. In laying out an agenda for the year in a State of the Union or State of the State address, Presidents and Governors propose spending hundreds of billions (on the federal level) or millions (on the state level) as display of their ability to plan the coming year. This year’s State of the State address by Nebraska’s governor, Dave Heineman, was no exception. Although Nebraska’s biennial budget is projected to run nearly $1 billion short, the Governor’s address includes a long list of spending proposals.

Because government is so large at every level, bureaucracy is out of control. With the base-line budgeting³ and use-it-or-lose-it mentality⁴ dominating government there is little motivation to cut, more motivation to spend.

• Makes budget “balancing” easier, puts off difficult decisions about making cuts

States have been taking in federal funds at a rate that is as alarming as the rate of growth in government, spending, and the deficit. In fact, it’s difficult to avoid the question: Is there a potential correlation between the exploding deficit and the increasing rate at which States have been taking in federal dollars? The two charts embedded below illustrate this starkly. ⁵.

Recent events show us how federal funds simply delay the inevitable; spending at all levels of government (of course there are exceptions) is at best, in need of serious scrutiny, and at worst, totally out of control. The February 2009 Stimulus bill did more than delay the inevitable; it raised the baseline on spending, particularly in areas like education, thereby making it more difficult to make cuts that are long overdue.

Federal Aid to States 1981 – 2009, in billions of dollars:

Compare the Aid to States chart, above, to the Public Debt chart, below, for the same period, both in billions of dollars:

Source: USGovernmentSpending.com, based on federal figures

• Lobbyists and big-government advocates are focused and organized at the state and local levels

I’ve spent some time at the State Capitol in the past year and a half. What I’ve learned in my experience as an observer, visitor, and testifier is that lobbyists, organizations, and associations are now embedded in the process.⁶

Paid lobbyists, businesses, and funded organizations have the advantage…

For lobbyists and formal organizations, there is money at stake. The lobbyists are paid to be at the Capitol, organizations and associations who do not employ a lobbyist are motivated to spend their time because they stand to benefit.

Most citizens have schedules that make participation at the Capitol difficult; the majority of government business is conducted during weekday business hours.

• Most Americans are focused on the federal government, not their state government

Nebraskans seem to believe their elected officials (and their state’s budget) are not the problem. Clear evidence of the sentiment can be seen in the results of the 2010 election. Nebraska voters who did vote (less than half of registered voters) on November 2 re-elected incumbents across the board by wide margins. Nebraska’s governor was re-elected by the widest margin of any governor in the country at 74% of the vote, all major state-level offices were once again filled by Republicans (see the official 2010 results in the NE Secretary of State Canvass book), and Nebraska’s three U.S. Congressman were re-elected handily (also found in the Canvass book). Since the Nebraska Legislature was already a super-majority of Republicans, voters showed their support for the status quo.

Further evidence exists in the many emails that are forwarded or sent directly to me and in my conversations with concerned individuals; people know more about what is happening in Congress than in the State Legislature.

With few Nebraskans “minding the store”, lobbyists, organizations, associations, their chosen political party, and campaign donors, are the major influencers of state-level politicians, not the citizens of the state.

• Too many people simply want “goodies” from government

The entitlement mentality pervades…

The continuous expansion of government spending has exploded entitlement programs and the entitlement mentality. As the chart below shows, 57% of the 2010 Federal government budget was spent on “entitlement” programs. The reason for the quotation marks is simple; the labels on the pie chart only label programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, workmen’s compensation and ‘other welfare’ programs. It depends upon how one defines the phrase entitlement program. What about subsidies, grants, and programs that are targeted at specific classes of Americans?

Federal Budget 2010 with entitlement programs labeled

The Welfare States…

While there are far more welfare programs at the federal level, one of the reasons spending is out of control is because the states have increasingly needed bailout out from their own overspending. It’s become quite clear that the February 2009 Stimulus bill was not at all about stimulating the economy. Among the short list of things it was in fact, about, was a bailout for state governments.

Cut everything! (Except the stuff *I* like)

There are a number of “sacred cows” in Nebraska (and assuredly everywhere else) that people don’t want to touch. Some of these very programs were the direct reason why we have taken in hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. At the top of that list are the K-12 and Secondary education budgets, the defined benefits retirement plan for state employees, and the “Cadillac” Medicaid program we offer. It seems that everyone has at least one “sacred cow”, some people, many. And that seems to be the root of the problem; people like to talk about cutting, until it’s their cow(s) on the chopping block.

In some ways, our elected officials at the state level are simply carrying out policies that reflect the wishes of the people within the state. At the very least might be said that they are trying to keep everyone happy. And if it is a fact that almost everyone wants or believes they are “entitled to” something from government, then growth of government is (and has been, quite obviously) the natural result.

If the entitlement mentality persists and politicians do nothing but say “yes”, we will all learn, in the not-too-distant-future, what that now over-used word “unsustainable” really means.

Taking all of the above into account, ARE state level officials and bureaucrats opposed to the “imposition” of federal programs?

_______________________________

This is not the first article we’ve written on this topic

FOOTNOTES: